A New Nuclear Future for Dungeness?

Forty years after the start of the nuclear programme in England, we are none the wiser as to what to do with nuclear waste, not just for the next few years, but for the next 40,000 years.

The Governments answer to this, is to introduce a new nuclear programme.

Is this evidence of their long term planning? I don't think so.

On Romney Marsh, residents have learnt to live with nuclear power stations on their doorsteps.

This represents jobs and a stability to the local economy. However, there are alternatives which offer jobs, stability, boost the local economy, without the threat of disaster, and much kinder to the local and national environment.

It is important to remember, that nuclear power only produces 5% of the national power used, and will not be the answer to our long term problems of meeting demand.

Indeed, the answer isn't nuclear at all. The way our power is produced, and then distributed means, that two thirds, yes, two thirds of ALL power produced, is lost in distribution.

This means, that every time you turn on a light switch, the power you are using in only one third of the power produced, and two thirds has already been wasted and lost.

If the government were to change the way power is produced and distributed in this country, we could USE two thirds of the production, that is, double our production as it stands now, with no need for nuclear energy at all.

This model is already being used in Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands, with enormous effect, with bio fuels, and cutting carbon emissions by an astonishing 50%.

Combined heat and power plants are far smaller than enormous power stations, and are situated closer to where the energy is to be used, therefore loss of power is diminished.

Decentralisation of power plants to be exact. They produce electricity, and heat produced in this process, is then used to heat homes, factories, work places etc, with no wasted heat billowing out of the top of power stations into the atmosphere.

In the Netherlands they go one step further. The electricity is used to light the miles and miles of greenhouses used in the production of flowers and vegetables. The heat produced is used to heat these enormous glass structures, but to top this, the carbon dioxide produced, is then fed into the greenhouses to enable the plants to produce their crops.

And where is Britain in contrast to these forward thinking countries? Is this Government even contemplating alternatives to nuclear power. Is this Government thinking about the long term effects of their decisions to yet again enter into a nuclear programme, when the waste from the last 40 years is still going to haunt us for the next 40,000 years, with no answer to the problem in site.

Look at the alternatives that can enhance our way of life and our environment, with no loss of jobs, and economic stability for our communities. Lets look at ways forward, not back. Lets follow the example set by some of our European neighbours to the way forward.

With decommissioning costing £75 billion as it stands today, the cost of nuclear energy is not just to the environment, but in the cost of our every day lives.